Cahill v. State, 85-1734
| Decision Date | 11 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1734,85-1734 |
| Citation | 489 So.2d 1219,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1345 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1345 Robert W. CAHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Robert W. Cahill appeals his sentence following our affirmance of his judgment and reversal of his sentence in Cahill v. State, 467 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We again reverse for resentencing.
At his resentencing hearing on June 28, 1985, Cahill chose not to be sentenced under the guidelines and was sentenced to ninety-nine years for kidnapping. The trial court retained jurisdiction over the first one-third of the sentence. On appeal Cahill contends that the trial court erred by failing to state with individual particularity the reasons for retaining jurisdiction. We agree and reverse.
The only reason given by the court for retaining jurisdiction was this statement on the sentence: "Defendant has prior criminal activity." This is not a sufficient reason to retain jurisdiction over the jail sentence of a criminal defendant. It does not satisfy the requirement of section 947.16(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), for individual particularity. Sims v. State, 487 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Wright v. State, 425 So.2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Robinson v. State, 458 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
We reverse for resentencing at which time the trial court will either relinquish its retention of jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence or state its justification for retention with individual particularity as required by the statute.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Dugger, 87-2906
...with the statutory requirements that the reason for retention be stated with, "... individual particularity". See Cahill v. State, 489 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to state with particularity the reasons for retention of......
-
Macias v. State, 92-118
...by the record. None, either individually or collectively, justify the trial court's retention of jurisdiction. See Cahill v. State, 489 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, 458 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Owen v. State, 441 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), motion denied, 446 ......
-
Jackson v. State, BM-170
...to relief if he establishes the allegations set forth in his motion. See State v. Green, 421 So.2d 508 (Fla.1982) and Cahill v. State, 489 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach the portions of the record and files which conclusiv......
-
King v. State
...over the sentence or state its justification for retention with sufficient specificity as required by the statute. See Cahill v. State, 489 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Reversed and FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., concur. ...